The
Criteria for Humanity
By
Ayatullah Murtaza Mutahhari
Extracted from Spiritual Discourses
I have been asked to discuss the
question of the criteria for humanity. If we were to do so from the
viewpoint of biology, this would be an easy matter since we would be
dealing with the human body and the place of human beings in the animal
world, in which case there is no difference between individuals. By the
standard of anatomy, medicine, and, even to some extent, psychology,
there are no major differences between two or more individuals.
But is humanity limited to the body? Is
human per- fection and mobility confined to man's physical aspect? In
humanistic sciences there is talk of perfect and imper- fect man, of the
low and high kind. What type of human being is ethically and socially
worthy of respect because of his or her perfection, or deserving of
contempt because of his or her imperfections? This is a topic which has
al- ways attracted attention not only in human knowledge, but also in
various religions. For example, the Quran speaks of human beings who are
higher than angels and worthy of homage by the latter. It also mentions
human beings who are inferior to animals.
What is the criteria which measures the
differences be- tween human beings? This question is not only related to
religion. Materialistic philosophers, too, who do not believe in God and
religion, discuss the question of man, humanity and superior and
inferior beings.
What is the criteria according to these
philosophers? Can we say that human beings are equal genetically, but
that they differ in knowledge. That is, something which is acquired not
inherited, so that a person with more know- ledge is higher than one
with less? Is this related to acade- mic knowledge which gives
superiority according to the level and stage of one's studies? Do we
respect people only in proportion to their learning? Is Abudhar honoured
be- cause he was more learned than his contemporaries? Is Mu'awiyyah
blameworthy and disliked because he had inferior knowledge?
Part II.
I do not believe that learning is a
criterion for humanity. If it were so, we should say that Einstein was
the most endowed with qualities of humanity since he was the most
learned man of his time.
Another view is that although knowledge
is one of the requisites of humanity, and although the importance of
awareness of the self, of the society and of the world can- not be
denied, it is inadequate. This view claims that humanity is measured by
character and disposition. A per- son may be very learned, but if he has
a bad character, would he be considered to be a real human being?
An animal behaves according to its
instincts and it possesses no will to rule over its instincts. When we
call a dog a faithful animal, its faithfulness is instinctive. An ant is
prudent by instinct. There are also human beings in the world who have a
disposition resembling that of an animal. They possess their natural
instincts, but have done nothing to refine themselves, and are condemned
only to follow their nature.
The awareness of an animal is limited
to its own time and place, while man's awareness allows him to know the
past and have an idea of the future and also step beyond his own area
and even his own planet. But the question of character is a different
matter. Knowledge is related to what one is taught, while character is
related to training and the forming of habits.
I do not think that knowledge as a
criterion of humani- ty is acceptable and I will later explain what type
of people support it. The second view, i.e., characteristics as a criter-
ion of humanity, has more supporters. But we may ask what kind of
characteristics and dispositions? One of the answers to this question is
that love is the desired criterion, love, which is the mother of other
fine dispositions. Thus, if one bases one's character on the love of
human beings, one has real humanity. Such a person is as interested in
others as in one's '"self " or even more interested in them.
In religion this is called
self-sacrifice. There is a state- ment in a book that there is an
instruction in all religions to love for others what you love for
yourself, and dislike for them what you dislike for yourself. This has
been stated in our traditions. This is the logic of love. As we know, in
the Hindu schools and in Christianity, much emphasis is laid on love.
But they have gone so far as to lose sight of everything else and
maintain that love is to be a course of action in all circumstances.
Thus the love of both these ideologies is a kind of stupefaction and the
adequacy of love as a criterion of humanity is to be discussed.
Part III.
But if we accept the love for other
human beings as the criterion, the issue will be solved more easily than
if we accept knowledge as the criterion. For example, concerning our
preference for Abudhar over Mu'awiyyah, we are in a better position to
judge them on the basis of love . Mu'awiy- yah was a selfish and
ambitious man who exploited others by force. Abudhar was the reverse,
and although he had all the possibilities and even though Mu'awiyyah was
prepared to offer him many privileges, yet he was anxious about the fate
of others, particularly those who were oppressed by Mu'awiyyah. That is
why he arose against this wicked man and spent his last years in exile
where he died. Thus, we call Abudhar human as he loved others, and we
consider Mu'a- wiyyah inhuman as he was only interested in himself.
Or, similarly, why do we think Hadrat
Ali, peace be upon him, is a perfect human being? Because he felt soc-
iety's pain, and his 'I' had become 'We'. His personality attracted all
others. He was not an individual separated from others. He was a limb or
organ of a whole body. He himself said that a pain in one part of
society, as in a body, made itself felt in the other parts, one of which
was himself. Ali had declared this long before the humanistic philosophy
of the twentieth century claimed it as an ideal.
When he heard that a governor appointed
by him had attended a feast, he wrote him a letter of protest which is
quoted in the Nahj ul-Balagha. It is not mentioned what kind of a feast
it had been, whether there had been drinking or gambling or dancing. The
governor was considered guilty by Hadrat Ali because he had participated
in an aristocratic feast which was not attended by any poor people.
He says, "I never believed a governor
and representative of mine would attend such a party of the nobility."
He then describes his own life and says that he felt other people's pain
more than his own and their pain prevented him from feeling his own. His
words show that he was a truly learned and wise sage. Yet the reason why
we honor him so deeply is not only because of his wide knowledge, but
because he was human. He was not unaware of the destiny of others.
Another school of thought considers
resolution and will- power as the criterion for humanity. It claims that
if a person can dominate himself, his instincts, nerves and passions by
his will-power and reason and not be dominated over by his inclinations
and desires, he is really human.
Part IV.
There is a difference between desire
and will. Desire is an attraction by an exterior force, a relation
between man and external objects, like a hungry man drawn by food, or
sexual attraction. Even sleep is an attraction. So is desire for rank
and position. But resolution is something internal, which liberates one
from the urges of desire. It places desires at the disposal of
will-power to employ them as it considers expedient. Most of our past
moralists emphasized resolution as a criterion for humanity. People,
unlike ani- mals, which are ruled by instinct, can decide to act against
their own inclinations. Thus a person of resolution is more human than
one who cannot control the 'self'.
Another criterion for humanity is
freedom. What does this mean? It means that to the extent that one
tolerates no force, and is not captivated by any power and can choose
freely, one is human. In modern schools of thought, much emphasis is
laid on freedom as one of the criteria of humanity. Is this view correct
or not? It is both correct and incorrect. As a requisite for humanity,
it is correct, but as the sole criterion for humanity, it is wrong.
Islam has laid great emphasis on
self-control. I relate a story here in connection with it. It is
narrated that the Pro- phet was passing by a place in Medina where a
number of young men were testing their strength by lifting a heavy
stone. When they saw the Prophet, they asked him to act as judge. The
Prophet agreed, and at the end of the com- petition he said, "Do you
know who is the strongest? It is he who controls his anger and does not
allow it to over- come him. He must not use his anger in a way contrary
to God's satisfaction and should be able to dominate over his own
desires."
On that day, the Prophet transformed a
physical contest into a spiritual one. What he meant was that physical
strength shows manliness but it is not the only sign of it. True
manliness is in the strength of will power.
We call Hadrat Ali the 'Lion of God',
for he was more manly than all in two ways: Externally in society and on
the battlefield where he could overthrow his strongest opponents; and,
more important than that, internally, meaning that he was in perfect
control of himself and of every whim and wish.
Part V.
Jalal al-din Rumi tells a story in his
Mathnavi about Hadrat Ali as a young man of 24 or 25 in which he por-
trays a fine picture of manliness. He had thrown down his adversary in a
battle and was sitting on his chest, about to kill him. The man spit on
Hadrat's face. Annoyed, Hadrat Ali temporarily leaves the man and walks
about for a while. The man asks why he left him to himself. Hadrat
answers, "If I had killed you then, it would have been in anger, not in
the way of my duty to my goal and for the sake of God." This is a
wonderful example of self control.
Hadrat Ali says in his testament to his
son, Imam Hasan, peace be upon him, "Consider yourself and your life
above every mean deed. In return for what you pay out of your life for
desires, you receive nothing. Do not make yourself a slave of others,
for God has created you free." The ques- tion of freedom is something
that the school of existential- ism, too, accepts as a criterion for
humanity.
Another criterion for humanity is the
question of duty and responsibility which began with Kant and has been
em- phasized in our own time. This means feeling responsible to society,
to oneself and to one's family. How should one obtain this feeling and
what is its basis? Is it created in one's conscience?
Another school of thought, including
Plato, considers beauty as the criterion for humanity. All schools
recognize and approve of justice. One school approves of justice from an
ethical viewpoint. Another one approves of it because it considers that
there is a relation between justice and free- dom, while Plato thinks
justice is good in both the indivi- dual and society, because it leads
to poise and beauty. Of course, his idea of beauty is obviously
spiritual beauty.
On another occasion we will judge
between all these schools and we will review the views of Islam on this
issue.
Ref :
Spiritual Discourses
by Ayatollah Morteza Motahhari |